Post trump Legal Actions, Including his Enablers

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

11 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Nothing noble about it. Just ass covering on the chance he gets caught.

Hi Joe & jakee,

Once again, I disagree:  Gerald Ford: Domestic Affairs | Miller Center

I consider Jerry Ford one of the most decent men to ever hold the job of POTUS.  

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,257]

22 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe & jakee,

Once again, I disagree:  Gerald Ford: Domestic Affairs | Miller Center

I consider Jerry Ford one of the most decent men to ever hold the job of POTUS.  

Jerry Baumchen

That very link says that Ford pardoned Nixon for self serving reasons, not for the good of the country. Never mind that even his public justification was more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal than the country. Imagine the outcry from the Right today if it was ever suggested that prosecutors should be careful not to harm the mental health of a suspect!

 

Ford told Americans on September 8, 1974, that he had granted the pardon because Nixon had suffered enough, because the threat of prosecution was damaging Nixon's health, and because a trial of the ex-President would reignite bitter and divisive passions and prevent the country from moving forward. Privately, Ford worried that a trial would seriously harm his ability to govern, and he yearned for a presidency free from daily questions about the fate of Richard Nixon.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

I disagree.  While one [ his pardon ] was a factor in his non-election, I do not believe it was a factor in his [ Ford's ] decision making, as regards the pardon.

He wanted to put the past behind us & move forward.

Jerry Baumchen

Regardless of motivation and consequence, it shows that people at the highest level of government thought there might be potential legal issues. Why else provide a pardon if a president couldn't have done anything illegal to begin with.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

That very link says that Ford pardoned Nixon for self serving reasons, not for the good of the country. Never mind that even his public justification was more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal than the country. Imagine the outcry from the Right today if it was ever suggested that prosecutors should be careful not to harm the mental health of a suspect!

 

Ford told Americans on September 8, 1974, that he had granted the pardon because Nixon had suffered enough, because the threat of prosecution was damaging Nixon's health, and because a trial of the ex-President would reignite bitter and divisive passions and prevent the country from moving forward. Privately, Ford worried that a trial would seriously harm his ability to govern, and he yearned for a presidency free from daily questions about the fate of Richard Nixon.

Hi jakee,

Ford became POTUS on 9 Aug 74; he pardoned Nixon on 8 Sep 74.

I have no idea on when the bolded info in your post was written.  You probably do not either.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Regardless of motivation and consequence, it shows that people at the highest level of government thought there might be potential legal issues. Why else provide a pardon if a president couldn't have done anything illegal to begin with.

Hi Sky,

We all accepted the pardon at that time.

I am no legal scholar; but, I do not believe it is possible to actually pardon someone when they have NOT been convicted of a crime.

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Ah, the good old days.  Where republicans put the good of the country ahead of their own personal greed for power.  Can anyone imagine Trump saying "I will withdraw from the race for the good of the country, since it serves no one to have a rapist and convicted felon as president?"  No?  Didn't think so.

 

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Ah, the good old days.  Where republicans put the good of the country ahead of their own personal greed for power. 

John McCain, Liz Cheney, ......there must be some others......I guess the good old days are gone.

[JoeWeber 2,302]

42 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

John McCain, Liz Cheney, ......there must be some others......I guess the good old days are gone.

Nope, if Trump wins we'll all be looking back at these as the good old days.

[Phil1111 911]

57 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Nope, if Trump wins we'll all be looking back at these as the good old days.

Well its not looking good. trump killed 400,000 during the Covid crisis. Surely he couldn't kill more during a second presidency?

Given the rabid devotions of his base a felony could cause his support to skyrocket. With mothers naming their babies Donald. Republican supporters selling their homes to buy DJT stock. All sorts of other irrational support.... like Brent's.

[jakee 1,257]

6 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi jakee,

Ford became POTUS on 9 Aug 74; he pardoned Nixon on 8 Sep 74.

I have no idea on when the bolded info in your post was written.  You probably do not either.

Jerry Baumchen

Then why did you provide it as evidence? 
Come on dude, you can’t have it both ways. The author of your link either knows what he’s talking about or he doesn’t. If he does, you should consider what he actually says. If he doesn’t, why are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

[jakee 1,257]

6 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

We all accepted the pardon at that time.

The new President, however, re-opened old wounds when, exactly one month into his tenure, he granted Richard Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon . . . for all offenses" Nixon committed, or "may have committed," while President.…

Instead Ford's pardon of Nixon touched off a firestorm of protest. Polls showed that most Americans wanted Nixon punished. Observers also questioned Ford's judgment in pardoning Nixon so soon after taking office, with one Republican senator asking a presidential aide, "doesn't he have any sense of timing?" Indeed, his first press secretary, Jerald terHorst, resigned in protest over Ford's decision. Ford's popularity plummeted in public opinion polls, dropping from the high sixties into the high thirties.

Just as important, members of Congress from both parties reacted angrily to the pardon. A group of liberal Democrats, in particular, wanted to learn more about the pardon—and especially whether Ford had discussed Nixon's pardon with the ex-President or his staff. The specter of a deal between Nixon and Ford hung in the background as a special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee ("The Hungate Committee") sent Ford a set of questions about the pardon. Attempting to answer his critics, Ford agreed to appear before the committee, a decision his White House aides did not support. Ford thus became the first President since Abraham Lincoln to testify before a congressional committee of inquiry. 
 

That doesn’t sound to me like the reaction of a nation which accepts a decision. As a general rule it’s a good idea to read a link which you hope supports your point of view before posting it. 
 

6 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I am no legal scholar; but, I do not believe it is possible to actually pardon someone when they have NOT been convicted of a crime.

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Exactly, yet another huge problem with Ford’s decision. It kicked a can down the road and left open a bunch of legal questions contributing to the quagmire today. Heck, Trump might already be in prison if not for Ford’s pardon.

[wmw999 2,123]

11 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

We all accepted the pardon at that time.

I am no legal scholar; but, I do not believe it is possible to actually pardon someone when they have NOT been convicted of a crime.

Nixon was never convicted of anything.

Jerry Baumchen

Well, some folks I knew complained mightily. But when you consider that our parents (the Greatest Generation mostly, or their Lost or Silent post and pre-generations) were very much of the "suck it up and pretend nothing happened" types, it's not surprising that Ford did that, or that there was as little pushback as there was.

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,628]

Another crony goes to the big house.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/10/trump-weisselberg-sentencing-new-york/

[SkyDekker 1,123]

15 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I am no legal scholar; but, I do not believe it is possible to actually pardon someone when they have NOT been convicted of a crime.

Why would you think that?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

6 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Well, some folks I knew complained mightily. But when you consider that our parents (the Greatest Generation mostly, or their Lost or Silent post and pre-generations) were very much of the "suck it up and pretend nothing happened" types, it's not surprising that Ford did that, or that there was as little pushback as there was.

Wendy P.

Hi Wendy,

I was 33 at the time.  No one that I knew complained.  We had Watergate in the news 24/7 for over two yrs by then.  IMO the vast majority of us [ me included ] wanted to put it behind us & move on.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,257]

11 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

I was 33 at the time.  No one that I knew complained.  We had Watergate in the news 24/7 for over two yrs by then.  IMO the vast majority of us [ me included ] wanted to put it behind us & move on.

Jerry Baumchen

Sure, but the vast majority of people you know is still a tiny number of people.

From Rumsfeld who was in the White House at the time:

At the White House, “angry calls, heavy and constant” began jamming the switchboards. Throughout the rest of Ford’s presidency, fomented by Nixon critics in the media, where they were thick in number, suspicion about the circumstances surrounding the pardon lingered. A whopping 71 percent polled by Time magazine believed then that Ford may not have told the country the whole truth about the circumstances of the pardon.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-richard-nixon-pardon-tore-gerald-ford-administration-apart-watergate/

And since you're so concerned with when things were written, this was published in September 1974:

Throughout the most painful week of Gerald Ford's fledgling presidency, public protest continued to batter the White House. Far from easing after the first shock of Ford's precipitate pardon of Richard Nixon for any and all federal crimes committed during his presidency, the controversy grew...

Thus, barely a month into his presidency, Gerald Ford found himself jeered by a crowd of pardon protesters outside a hotel in Pittsburgh, where he addressed a conference on urban transportation. They waved signs bearing such taunts as THE COUNTRY WON'T STAND FOR IT—a mockery of Ford's declaration about a pardon for Nixon, which Ford made during the Senate hearings to confirm him as Vice President. In an otherwise pleasant outing to help dedicate a World Golf Hall of Fame in Pinehurst, N.C., Ford faced more banners: IS NIXON ABOVE THE LAW? and JAIL CROOKS, NOT RESISTERS...

From a rating of 71% approval three weeks before the pardon, he had skidded so that only 49% rated him as doing either a "fair" or "good" job. Unlike Nixon's White House aides, Ford's staff reported the extent of adverse telegrams and mail. More than 30,000 comments were received, and they ran about 6 to 1 against Ford's decision.... 

A surprising number of local judges cited the Nixon pardon as prompting them to treat offenders leniently. Los Angeles Municipal Judge Gilbert Alston ordered the release of a Viet Nam veteran who had held three hostages at riflepoint in Griffith Park during an alleged "combat flashback." Explained the judge: "If a man who almost wrecked the country can be pardoned, this defendant can be released to get proper treatment." The release was countermanded by a higher judge. County Judge Kirk Smith pardoned two traffic law violators in Grand Forks, N.D., as "an act of clemency" in response to Ford's action. Federal Judge Marvin Frankel reduced a 30-day sentence for a New York tax evader to a $1,000 fine on grounds that potential charges against Nixon involved far greater underpayments of taxes. From his federal district court bench in Chicago, Judge Hubert Will deplored the notion "that political criminals can get away with more than other criminals."

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,908732-2,00.html

Just imagine - Federal Court Judges letting criminals walk free in protest over a decision that people supposedly didn't care about?

[winsor 186]

On 4/10/2024 at 7:32 AM, wmw999 said:

Well, some folks I knew complained mightily. But when you consider that our parents (the Greatest Generation mostly, or their Lost or Silent post and pre-generations) were very much of the "suck it up and pretend nothing happened" types, it's not surprising that Ford did that, or that there was as little pushback as there was.

Wendy P.

My father absolutely loathed Tricky Dick Nixon, but was fine with Ford's decision to focus on the pressing issues of the day instead of wallowing in the muck of the previous administration.

Ford actually followed longstanding tradition where, say, King Henry offered blanket pardons to enable the loyalty of nobles who had served Richard.

As an aside, our previous president makes Nixon look like a model of competence, integrity and decency - which I would not have thought possible.

A review of constitutional law suggests that Trump could be both convicted and elected.  It seems Boston's Mayor Curley was both in office and prison during his last term, so there's precedent.

I'm curious if outfitting accommodations at Leavenworth to serve as an executive office would do, or maybe an ankle bracelet for White House Arrest would be an option.  Would his parole officer have to approve meetings with heads of state?

Deciding whether Kamala Harris is an improvement is akin to trying to pick between polio and leprosy.  Any way you cut it, we're fucked this time around.  If a people truly get the government they deserve, it would appear that we suck out loud.

 

It was fun while it lasted,

Winsor

[wmw999 2,123]

2 hours ago, winsor said:

Deciding whether Kamala Harris is an improvement is akin to trying to pick between polio and leprosy

The choice is between Biden and Trump; based on the way they take care of themselves, Biden stands an excellent chance of outliving Trump.

That said, your comparison of polio and leprosy is kind of apt. Because polio can be mild and even undetected, but there’s nothing really we can do to fix it until it’s run it’s course, and that course can have devastating consequences. Leprosy, on the other hand, is slow, and for the vast majority of people, cured with treatment. Especially if they comply with the treatment, and don’t use chloroquine and ass lights instead, or simply deny it because Rush said it’s not real.

I agree this isn’t a great choice. I’m on the record after the last election as saying the absolute last thing I want is a repeat. If Trump is elected, the 22nd amendment is a part of the constitution he’d probably try to “suspend.”

Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Ford actually followed longstanding tradition where, say, King Henry offered blanket pardons to enable the loyalty of nobles who had served Richard.

I seem to remember a war being fought because people didn't like longstanding tradition.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, winsor said:

Deciding whether Kamala Harris is an improvement is akin to trying to pick between polio and leprosy.  Any way you cut it, we're fucked this time around.  If a people truly get the government they deserve, it would appear that we suck out loud.

More like pancreatic cancer vs COVID.  One you will usually survive.  The other one won't give you a second chance.  The wise person will choose COVID.

Neither is good.  One is far less bad.

[billvon 2,400]

From Revelation 12, a passage that's oddly prescient:

Another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born . . .

 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

“Now have come the salvation and the power
    and the kingdom of our God,
    and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
    who accuses them before our God day and night,
    has been hurled down.
They triumphed over him
    by the blood of the Lamb
    and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
    as to shrink from death.
Therefore rejoice, you heavens
    and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
    because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
    because he knows that his time is short.”

Other than a slight error in color, seems to have some relevance today.

[jakee 1,257]

32 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I seem to remember a war being fought because people didn't like longstanding tradition.

Yes, the whole ‘let’s just do what dictators do’ suggestion is rather amusing.

[kallend 1,628]

The trial that starts today is not just about hush money.  It's about whether illegally falsifying business records is acceptable in order to deceive voters prior to an election.

It is quite conceivable that the revelations of his sexual adventures coming out right after the "pussy grabbing" tapes could have influenced sufficient voters** to switch in 2016 giving us a different president in 2017, a different Supreme Court now, with all that followed.

** it would only take some 0.5% of voters to switch.

 

[kallend 1,628]

On 4/9/2024 at 2:45 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

In the Nixon-Frost interviews, Nixon said:  'If the President does it, it is not illegal.'

Looks like not everyone agrees:  Presidential immunity would “inexorably lead to deep divisions between the armed forces’ political and military leaders and would place servicemen and women in the impossible position of either ignoring presidential orders they are sworn to obey or committing crimes at the President’s behest in violation of their oath — for which they may be prosecuted,”

Former top military officers push back on Trump immunity claim | The Hill

Jerry Baumchen

 

The defense brief in favor of absolute immunity argues, in effect, that only a criminal can be an effective president.

[tkhayes 126]

22 hours ago, kallend said:

The trial that starts today is not just about hush money.  It's about whether illegally falsifying business records is acceptable in order to deceive voters prior to an election.

It is quite conceivable that the revelations of his sexual adventures coming out right after the "pussy grabbing" tapes could have influenced sufficient voters** to switch in 2016 giving us a different president in 2017, a different Supreme Court now, with all that followed.

** it would only take some 0.5% of voters to switch.

 

turns out that Trump was trying to cover it up as he thought the Christian conservatives would be upset that he had an affair with a porn star while he was having a baby or whatever the timeline was.

Turns out that the christian conservatives did not give a fuck, as we have found over the years.... they have no morals and can justify their authoritarian goals because 'god's plan' or whatever other bullshit they believe.

Trump should have just said "yeah I fucked the porn star" and be done with it, would have saved himself $130K+, a felony conviction, which is coming soon enough,

but I expect there will be a month of jury selection, calls for mistrials, perhaps even a mistrial thanks to several jurors who no doubt will be rabid trump MAGA types, and so on.  the justice system is a clown show being run by the clown that is under indictment and I have little faith in it anymore.

Even if Trump is convicted on EVERY felony count in this and every other trial, the christian conservatives and MAGA types will not give a fuck, it will not change a single one of their votes.